Subdural Metastasis of Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dural metastasis from prostate cancer is rare and may mimic a subdural hematoma (SDH). Preoperatively diagnosis may be difficult and only reveal its presence during surgery. We present such a case and review the literature to identify common characteristics. A 65-year-old man presented with headache, confusion, and progressive right upper limb weakness. Past history included a prostate adenocarcinoma with bone metastasis 3 years earlier. Head computed tomography (CT) scan without contrast revealed a multinodular bilateral hyperdense extra-axial lesion interpreted as acute SDH. At surgery planned for SDH drainage no blood was found; instead there was an en plaque subdural yellowish tumor. Histopathologic examination was consistent with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate. We found 11 cases reported as dural metastasis of prostate cancer mimicking SDH. Surgery was performed on nine cases with no suspicion of dural metastasis. On preoperative nonenhanced CT scan images, three types of image patterns can be described: a nodule in SDH, multinodular metastasis surrounded by SDH, and large en plaque subdural tumor. The latter group consists of those cases where no blood but rather an en plaque subdural tumor was found at surgery. Even though rare, dural metastasis should be considered among the differential diagnoses in a patient known for prostate cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".